Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

Some number of years ago, Israel decided to build walls to protect itself from terrorism and migration. Did the sky fall? Not exactly. In the early 1920s, the U.S. ended mass immigration from Europe. Did the sky fall? Not exactly. In the 1950s, Dwight Eisenhower (the president) decided to round up and deport illegals on a very large scale (perhaps 1+ million). Did the sky fall? Not exactly. Any number of countries (notably Japan and Finland) continue to severely restriction mass immigration.

Any signs of falling skies? Not exactly. Patten should stop confusing his own personal ideology (Open Borders) and selfishness with public policies that obviously work.

Calling the tremendously successful Israeli security barrier an exercise in "fantasy-driven populism" shows that it is Patten and not his critics who have lost touch with reality.

This is just another failure to grasp the rejection of politics as usual by thinking people.The failed Tory-light policies of the Blairites are being ejected as more of the same neoliberal claptrap not only in Britain but in Scotland and maybe even in the US. The failures of the elites of the legacy parties is so blatant that they can't hide it from the citizenry, even with the help of the corporate press and the shrieks of losers.

Fantasy is to believe that the world would work well if we let the current political and economic forces do their work. The reality of the world is that overexploitation of natural resources is destroying the Earth, inequality has reached unbearable levels, and the drive to consumption doesn't make people become happier.

Mr Patten seems to live in a world of 20th century economics and we are now in the 21st century. Economists have never claimed that globalisation is good for everyone. What could be true in a world free from imperfections and frictions is that those who gain from globalisation could compensate those who lose and still be better off. However, we have never put in place any mechanism that would achieve this and the claim that "when the tide rises all the boats will rise with it" has been shown to be false. What we are observing now is the reaction of those who have been losers for a considerable number of years. Mr Corbyn's expansionist policies are in line with what the IMF and the U.S have been recommending for Europe for some time now. Mr Patten may not like what he considers to be Labour's throw back to earlier and outmoded positions but in so doing he is forgetting that the evolution of a system is not always positive and what he regards as populist fantasies are nothing more than rational reactions to a system that has let people down.
The quaint perception that we now have the technical means to implement measures that failed miserably in earlier crises shows a failure to understand the complexity of the world's economic system.
The dissatisfaction of the Greeks with the earlier governments and their realisation that, despite their voting for a change in policy ,nothing was negotiable with the non-elected powers that determine their fate, explains why Syriza came to power. Again this was not an unreasonable reaction. The fact that Tsipras had to tow the line and that his election commitments came to naught may, as some hope, bring the Greek people back into line and allow the powers that be to continue with policies that have brought some countries to their knees and have not enabled the world to emerge from the crisis that started some 7 years ago.
If the blame lies anywhere it is with the smug self satisfied "experts" who would like to believe that solving the world's problem is a technical question that can be solved by technocrats. The popular reaction to this unjustified arrogance may not be to the liking of Mr Patten but it is neither irrational nor unreasonable.

A very interesting contribution from the Chancellor of the University of Oxford. I've been trawling through a number of books one of which is Thomas Picketty's "Capital in the 21st Century" which seems to suggest Corbyn might have a point. Wealth, the ownership of assets which generate an income can, in his opinion, become sub-optimal if say one percent of the population owned everything then society would break down. We've a Food Bank in my town, a sign perhaps that things have gone too far? Just as in 1979 we've seen instability result. Good heavens, oiks like my brothers and I went to University shortly after this. Our father was a carpenter, our mother a clerkess. I'm delighted the drawbridge has been pulled up after us. Such fantasy-driven populism has no place in a democratic society.
Reality in this context is, I think, time-limited. Just as the post-war consensus ensured that whichever of the two major parties governed us we built a better Britain - for all its people, for all its people took part in the war which delivered us. They agreed to share the gains. Times change, now we have what Thatcher wanted, "no such thing as Society, only individuals and families acting in their own self-interest."
That I was happier in the world I grew up in than the one I now live in can, I hope, be taken as read.

It is very difficult to escape the clutches of the corporatist world and its minions, such as those in charge of the euro and EU, now proving to be terminally dysfunctional. This populism is simply an antidote to the prevailing neo-Liberal agenda, itself deeply dysfunctional, but still supported by all those correspondents who criticise Corbyn, and Tsipras etc.
These people are actually trying to do the right thing, and stop the rot in society that has arisen from the increasing disparity of income across society.

The reason for Corbyn's ascendency is that his opposition within the party is hopelessly compromised - as are the Tories, except the tories are not betraying their base. Labour has and so risks becoming irrelevant. Only a drastic reinvention can help. The people see this.

WE have no idea if he will make serious fatal missteps, but we should let him try. He doesn't yet show he understands modern money mechanics, so he's just like all his peers, not to mention the MSM. He desperately needs to get up to speed on that so he can push a workable agenda.

This article is out of order. The Pro-establishment (s) are well known and so are the Anti-establishment (s). What is always at stake is the Silent Majority. To win the Silent majority, this kind of article is totally counter-productive. The establishment (s) in the UK must work on its attitude, grow up and realize that they need the support and the acceptance of the people today more than ever. David Cameron must move away from his “cliché” style / approach, get down to earth and start working on winning the Silent Majority rather than pleasing the ignorant few. Merkel in the last few days learned it the hard way with the migration issue.

Chris Patten must be disappointed with politics in his home country. The British Labour Party has elected a new leader - a populist or a demagogue, depending on one's individual perception.
We must be asking the question why we are seeing this phenomenon of "populist insurgencies" of the left-right spectrum in a number of "developed democracies" in recent years. While the left-wing Syriza party took our breath away during the bailout crisis in Greece, its right-wing counterpart, the Golden Dawn made headlines for the wrong reasons. In France the right-wing populist party under Marine Le Pen is now the third largest political force. Ahead of the presidential election in the US, two outsiders have captured our imagination - Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump - who couldn't have more different personality and ideology.
Patten laments that Britain hasn't been spared by this "fantasy-driven populism". As if the UKIP under Nigel Farage hasn't done enough damage to Britain's relationship with the European Union, the newly elected Labour Party leader, Jeremey Corbyn threatens to introduce state capitalism and bleed the rich, while driving foreign investors out of the country and expanding the welfare empire.
Although the Labour Party under Corbyn would hardly move into No. 10 Downing Street, Patten says "no good will come from this insurrection for anyone". Although Cameron won the general election in May, Corbyn may be able to "galvanize many alienated young voters" against the incumbent government, which could become "arrogant" in the absence of an "effective and responsible opposition". The EU referendum needs a "cross-party consensus in favor of continued membership", and there is fear that Corbyn would side with EU sceptics. Patten is especially wary of Corbyn's relationship with the SNP, which would only encourage Scottish nationalists to break away from the UK. The biggest danger the author sees is that the Conservative government might pander to the "irrational populist forces on both the left and the right" to generate popular support, and "will shrink from its duty to stand up for good values and good sense". He sees Corbyn’s election as an evidence that "many Britons are refusing to accept reality", saying "it is up to Cameron to end their dangerous reverie". No, it is the media that should take on this task.

One cannot help thinking that Mr Pattens view though concise and well laid out, reflect the view of the international metropolitan elite that have been the direct beneficiaries of globalism.
From the Ivory Tower of his current position I believe it could be very easy to fall for the group think around globalism that has produced increasing job insecurity and wage stagnation in Western economies.
We have always had global trade but as Goldman Sachs EM fund demonstrates (reportedly 26% down) group think is not always a good bet and a lot of fundamentals have been coveniently ignored.
It should therefore be no surprise that there is a populist backlash from those that have not benefited from this phenomenon and the rise of figures such as Corbyn should be seen as the direct result of this"let them eat cake" attitude.

To fight against inequality has become a FANTASY ?
We the citizens have to stay quiet ,because any attack to This liberalism and to the authority of the Banks , means populism ?
A rebelion to our insensible politics, the opposition to the huge transference of money and rights from the poor to the rich are popular fantasy. ?
If you are in this world please make an evaluation of your democratic capacity to "read" what is going on. Then consider the possibility that are people that think different .

I don't know much about Corbyn, but what I know very well is the expression "populist" which in the elites' Orwellian newspeak denounces a person the elites don't like. It is typically used to repress open discussion and to eliminate dissenting opinion. Whoever is stained with this mark of Cain may be hunted down by the TV stations and newspapers they own or control.

So I should work harder and more hours so that the president of my company can make 130 times more than I do, rather than the 120 times s/he makes currently? And then cheer as s/he ships my job overseas to boost the income ratio to 150x that of the new workers?

A business certainly needs to be competitive at some level to survive, but the benefits of survival -- or better -- need to be equitably shared.

I think you may be missing that whole side of the argument here. The demands of a global economy don't discredit those who seek distributive justice -- at either the personal or the state level.

I actually think it is the other way around.
It is the author and people of the "establishment" who refuse to accept reality. It is typical they call anybody who does not agree with them childish, misinformed or living in fantasy.

Even this article outlines how such "fantasies" are spreading like wildfire all over the world, upsetting elections, uprooting governments, forcing uncomfortable coalitions.
Even the US elections might hold some unpleasant surprises for those who still think they are in control.

Personally I do not believe any of the newcomers, far left or far right candidates have any answers to our mounting global problems, unsolvable questions. Their emergence simply shows the public had enough, they want change as they do not expect any meaningful decisions, true solutions from those who are, or have been in power.

And it does not mean people reject globalization, global interconnections. This is how some people and the media want to spin it.
Moreover we do not even have a choice with globalization since it is not man-made.
We evolved from and still exist within a Universal, completely integrated and fully interdependent natural system. Sooner or later humanity had to catch up with the rest of the system in order to adapt to evolutionary conditions.
These inevitable interconnections are here to stay. the question is how we use them.

Our present human paradigm, the real illusion that is built on excessive artificial demand, "constant quantitative growth/infinite profit for a small minority" is the wrong option. In this dreamlike bubble we have built the interconnections are used in an exploitative manner, gaining at the expense of others.
In other words although we have become a single, interconnected 'super-organism" through globalization we still want to behave in it like cancer. And cancer is self-destructive.

So the only option, and more and more people start realizing it is reversing our paradigm and start using the interconnections in a selfless, mutually complementing way.
After all in a global, integral system the individual's survival, prosperity is directly related to, dependent on the survival and prosperity of the collective.
And this is not an ideology, or an ethical, moral questions. It is a natural, evolutionary necessity supported by science.

I lot of good points here. I can't really disagree with anything other than to say that any solution depending on the masses changing their thinking is almost impossible to achieve, in part because the media serves both the establishment (sell advertising) and the extremists (brings users) and have no real interest in serving the greater good. Journalists should be paid for by taxes and should be elected in small local elections - then maybe we could start to get somewhere towards a society where we all serve society in a less selfish way.

Since the mishandling of Hong Kong up to and including the Handover in 1997, I have not knowingly agreed with Mr. Patten on anything. That said, his comments in this case are concise and well-presented. While people may bleat, as per some of the ;posted comments, about how they feel that 'globalization has left them behind' and that others are 'getting rich at their expense', the truth is that entire business-world environment today is far more competitive and demanding than it ever was - education alone is insufficient; more hours must be expended (if only to engage in timely actions in other time zones), and also the need to understand other cultures. Fortress UK and Fortress Europe will not work and better than the building of walls on the US borders. In this, Mr. Patten is absolutely correct.

What the Tories probably fear most is a politically engaged youth. Corbyn seems to have stirred up the young in his election campaign - idealism will always resonate with the young - cynical Tory politics has the most to lose. Tory "reality" will not go down too well with the newly engaged youth.

Corbyn is first an opportunist, his sustain of colonialism over Falklands (instead of independence) and his denial to address the end of monarchy -despite being so "republican" that he does not even sing the anthem-, prove him so. Second he is inconsistent since Scottland nationalism -that he supports- is driven into EU and Corbyn is against EU.
Corbyn's populism is the fantasy -like Podemos and Syriza- of a extinguishing manufacture working class whose tale goes beyond that class in an accelerated changing production world.
Finally the Labour Party is likely to reconstruct itself getting rid of Corbyn if it retakes internationalism through regional integration and the social democracy renewed thoughts of the northern Europe. Corbyns failures and contradictions will soon lead the way to his party overcome.

Globalization isn't that another way of saying the poor should a--kiss the rich job "creators" Never mind the jobs created benefit China Bangladesh or West Bum-uck. As far as us unenlightened non elites cant tell the only people benefitting from Globalization are the existing "elites' The rest of us are going down, down, down. Thus anything looks better then what we have.

"fiscal prudence would go out the window, with cuts in health, welfare, and education spending being reversed" .this is pretty bad thinking by the author.right wing people always want to cut the above things.why?some experts are saying it is time for new type of thinking other than neo-(liberalism/conservatism)

First of all, let's get the facts straight: Corbyn is the only candidate telling the truth about UK government spending: Labor did NOT cause the financial crises by overspending; what's more, the Conservatives' austerity policies have actually hindered recovery.

The essential point the author makes here about "reality deniers" used to be called pragmatism and is a supreme concept, that enabled British Empire to rule the world that mattered most effectively for some 2 centuries. No amount of extraneous or even irreverent arguments presented by most commenters below should attempt to cloud that. There are cases in history where a clown having attained "Office" made a good job of it, e.g., Rev. Ian Paisley of Northern Ireland, but don't bet on it. Donald Trump most likely will compete with Bush Jr. in bringing US down NOT elevate it.

The only reality is that those who have the gold and the guns make the rules. In the past this was the British Empire and since World War II it is the United States and for the most part they have supported globalization, free trade, freedom of navigation. Say there was a coup in the United States and they decided to retreat back into Isolationism. No more US Navy patrolling the sea lanes, no more defence guarantees, implicit or explicit for a lot of nations, probably no more Bretton Woods agreement. Globalization would fall apart pretty quick in that scenario. Maybe China or Europe as dominate global powers could patch up a global framework but probably not (for a number of reasons). Reality is what people (and Great Powers) make of it......

Populist fantasies in Britain appear likely to hurt Britain alone - Democracy however populist always restores balance on D Day.
Populist fantasies in Global Players - where Democracy does not provide people the choice of leadership every 5 years - dangerous.
The Russian Empire for one - only Putin knows what's next.
The Holy Roman Empire - only Scotland, Ukraine, Catalonia, Flanders, Bavaria knows what's next.
The Arab League - not even God knows how to control the next Nation springing out of control.
The transparency of populist fantasies in Democracies - is accountable, and has to be electable.
Corbyn's fantasies will now have to win in the real world - May the best fantasy win.

Whilst I have no particular difficulty with Mr Patten's overall view of the rising influence of the "reality-deniers", I suspect that he would very much like to include within that particular description all those who would wish, as matters stand, to see the UK exit the EU. To be fair, his description of Mr Farage as a "joker" is widely shared, but it would be a pity, and a great disservice to the country, if influential people who strongly support the UK's membership of the EU, like Mr Patten, were to try to win the forthcoming debate by tarring others with the Farage/reality denier brush. The dysfunctionality within the EU is far too serious a matter for that, as the events which have dominated our news headlines for the past year have all too amply demonstrated. They say that the "no" camp in last year's Scottish Independence debate nearly lost the vote because they concentrated too much on the nitty-gritty issues and weren't able to inspire people by offering a "grand vision" of what it meant to be both Scottish and British. That may be true, but the opposite surely applies in the EU. Grand visions are ten-a-penny. Practical and deliverable solutions to the many problems within the EU (particularly the self-inflicted ones within the Eurozone) are manifestly not. The referendum won't be won by trotting out generalisations about prejudice and uninformed nostalgia. I suspect Mr Cameron knows this. I wonder whether Mr Patten does.

Absolutely right. Sadly the quality of the Scottish debate was appallingly low and it looks as if the Brexit debate will be the same with lots of jingoistic morons offering a reactionary prospectus if we leave and the status quo supporters easily able to make them look clownish and silly.

I would love to find a no campaign committed only to sensible arguments but it just doesn't exist -it's clear to see why someone like Corbyn can get selected.

The paradox of British politics is that Tories can't rule it. They have lost Scotland and the Union is no longer...Patten is a crying voice of Tories which doesn't dent domestic politics.

After listening to Jeremy acceptance speech of Labour Party leadership, I've a feeling Cameron's days are numbered; UK is surely moving left & Labour Party will win next elections... and keep UK in EU!

Just because YOU see it as madness it does not mean the millions of 'populists' who support Trump/Corbyn do so. They see it as a return to sanity. Perhaps it is more useful to try and understand why the supporters of these people are angry enough to support them. Britain for instance, gutted its working class economy after the last few decades to replace it with a financial services one, creating a wealthy class as separate thing which is unattainable to the working class.

Rubbish, History is replete with examples of nations like the United Kingdom, United States, Japan, China or Russia who at one point or another decided to dwell apart from the international community in "splendid isolation". There is nothing inevitable about globalization- it is up to nations to decide how much they are willing to accept and in what form.....

"Any semblance of fiscal prudence would go out the window", says the chancellor of Simon Wren-Lewis's university, without irony. &_& I'm not sure Jeremy Corbyn is quite the champion of rational, evidence based policy which the country desperately needs after all the damage done to it by pro-cyclic austerity, deficit fetishism, 'beyond satire' privatisation* etc. but he's the only hope we've got at the moment.

Chris, I thought you had retired after the fiasco at the BBC? You appear to have emerged in Oxford, god save the country from the future graduates of Oxbridge. Incidentally, Hong Kong has done very well and prospered since you left. Lucky guys. I shall add my voice to my fellow commentator below. If you and the old guards of the establishment think that you can take the populous for a ride, you are very much mistaken. The old days are long gone. J. Corbyn is 66 years old. By the time of the next General elections, he will be over 70. At 70 will he constitute a direct threat to the conservatives or to the establishment? What are you all scared of? Is it J. Corbyn or the actions of J. Corbyn like breading and installing a new generation of radicals in the UK? David Cameron must focus on getting the UK into the 21st century, will he succeed, at the moment it is 50-50 but in my view he is the only one that can deal with both establishments, the ones on the right and the ones to the left.

What this article is saying is that a very large portion of the people -- of the left and the right -- are too stupid to understand that being manipulated by their betters is actually GOOD for them, politically, morally and economically.

Charging people like Farage, Trump, Corbyn, Sanders with fantasy (although there may be a healthy dose of truth in it) seems to have distracted people in the political establishment from understanding the very real phenomenon of voter disgust with over-scripted leaders and leader-aspirants who prioritize power over principle and sound bytes over straight talk -- or any serious conversation with the people at all.

Without some constructive thinking, and soon, the center will not hold. And we all know how that ends up.

See also:

In the first year of his presidency, Donald Trump has consistently sold out the blue-collar, socially conservative whites who brought him to power, while pursuing policies to enrich his fellow plutocrats.

Sooner or later, Trump's core supporters will wake up to this fact, so it is worth asking how far he might go to keep them on his side.

A Saudi prince has been revealed to be the buyer of Leonardo da Vinci's "Salvator Mundi," for which he spent $450.3 million. Had he given the money to the poor, as the subject of the painting instructed another rich man, he could have restored eyesight to nine million people, or enabled 13 million families to grow 50% more food.

While many people believe that technological progress and job destruction are accelerating dramatically, there is no evidence of either trend. In reality, total factor productivity, the best summary measure of the pace of technical change, has been stagnating since 2005 in the US and across the advanced-country world.

The Bollywood film Padmavati has inspired heated debate, hysterical threats of violence, and a ban in four states governed by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party – all before its release. The tolerance that once accompanied India’s remarkable diversity is wearing thin these days.

The Hungarian government has released the results of its "national consultation" on what it calls the "Soros Plan" to flood the country with Muslim migrants and refugees. But no such plan exists, only a taxpayer-funded propaganda campaign to help a corrupt administration deflect attention from its failure to fulfill Hungarians’ aspirations.

French President Emmanuel Macron wants European leaders to appoint a eurozone finance minister as a way to ensure the single currency's long-term viability. But would it work, and, more fundamentally, is it necessary?

The US decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel comes in defiance of overwhelming global opposition. The message is clear: the Trump administration is determined to dictate the Israeli version of peace with the Palestinians, rather than to mediate an equitable agreement between the two sides.